Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 December 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201712.0145.v1 Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 100; doi:10.3390/su10010100 1 Review 2 Architect and the paradigms of sustainable 3 development: a review of dilemmas 4 Wojciech Bonenberg 1 and Oleg Kapliński 1* 5 1 Faculty of Architecture, Poznań University of Technology, 60-965 Poznań, Nieszawska Str. 13C, Poland 6 * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-61-6653260 7 Abstract: The article presents the architect's attitude towards the paradigms of sustainable 8 development. The place and role of the architect in the implementation of the multidimensional 9 process of sustainable design has been presented. Basic dilemmas and antinomies have been 10 presented. The analysis of architect's attitudes towards these problems was performed in various 11 contexts, examining the architect's awareness and his environment in view of changes under way. 12 The article draws attention to the status of knowledge, changes in design paradigms, legislative and 13 organizational requirements. The importance of architectural culture level, the need for training, 14 ways to support the implementation of new design paradigms through integrated activities have 15 been indicated. The research results regarding public awareness of architecture and sustainable 16 development are illustrated with examples from Poland. 17 Keywords: architect, sustainable architecture, paradigms of design, knowledge, society, Poland 18 19 1. Introduction 20 The results of developing sustainable architecture are founded on the symbiosis of ecologists 21 and architects. It began with these two professional groups proposing a change in functioning of the 22 building, i.e., a transition from a linear approach to a closed circulation plan. Therefore, from an 23 ecological point of view, the plan of the building functioning has become a paradigm. 24 In a linear pattern, the building is treated as a "place of processing natural resources into waste". 25 For example, energy is "converted" into heat losses, clean water into sewage, fresh air is converted 26 into used air, materials and consumer goods into classical waste. 27 In a closed circulation plan, a building may change from a voracious consumer of energy and all 28 other resources into a more self-sufficient unit. It will be possible to use much less energy for heating 29 in winter, and cooling and ventilation in the summer (part of the energy will be recovered). Part of 30 the water can not only be saved, but also re-used. Generally, a large amount of waste can be avoided 31 altogether, or used again. 32 The transition from one plan to another is evolutionarily. The first step in this design trend were 33 passive, low energy buildings. The next step were friendly buildings, friendly not only for people, 34 but also for the environment. Today we are talking about almost zero energy buildings, autonomous 35 buildings, and IQ architecture. There are numerous examples of such buildings. The shape of The 36 Edge, a new office building in Amsterdam, described as the most modern and the most "green 37 commercial building" in the world, is quite unusual. It was included in the category of intelligent 38 buildings and, as part of the BREEAM certificate, in 2016 the building then scored a record value of 39 [98.36%] (on the scale from 0 to 100%). Only two years after its construction, two more office buildings 40 scored even higher, i.e. Bloomberg’s new European headquarters in London (which scored 98,5%) 41 and the Geelen Counterflow Office in Haelen (The Netherlands) which scored 99,94% [1-3]. Of course, 42 all in the Offices–New category. 43 But there are also examples of achieving spectacular success in the area designing sustainable 44 settlements or cities. Such an example is the city of Masdar in the Abu Dhabi emirate, together with © 2017 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license. Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 December 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201712.0145.v1 Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 100; doi:10.3390/su10010100 2 of 15 45 the MIST university, which is autonomous in terms of energy, Moreover, it meets all other criteria of 46 sustainable development. 47 Arriving at sustainable design is a continuous process. What consequently changes is the 48 architect’s attitude towards the design paradigms, which are particularly noticeable in the context of 49 the intellectual and ecological revolution. 50 Society was, or has been a witness to three revolutions which have significantly influenced 51 architecture. The industrial revolution in the late nineteenth century (replacing physical labour with 52 machines) was a foundation of two other revolutions: the information and administration revolution 53 (from the mid-twentieth century: information processing, strengthening mental abilities) and 54 sustainable development type revolution, embracing aspects of ecology, economics and social / 55 cultural values. This is accompanied by enormous progress in the field of digitisation. All these 56 revolutions are developmental in character, but one can also say that their derivative is a new term: 57 architectural IQ. The dynamics of new examples / practical implementation of designs is amazing. 58 One may perhaps can not understand the essence of the revolution - especially the sustainable 59 development type but, in the design, it is obligatory to adapt to applicable law [4]. Unfortunately, 60 understanding the paradigms of sustainable development and design paradigms in some social 61 groups, including some architects, still faces some difficulties. Dilemmas arise, there are 62 contradictions in the interpretation of rules. 63 According to the Authors, the key to solving these dilemmas is knowledge (its acquisition, 64 broadening the scope), which will strengthen the understanding and application of the above- 65 mentioned paradigms. Sometimes resistance to sustainable design is evident. The source of 66 reluctance is limited awareness of part of the public as well as a certain group of architects. 67 The article deals with the architect's attitude towards these problems, examining the architect's 68 awareness in different contexts, and his/her environment in the light of the changes under way. The 69 results of research on the public awareness have been illustrated with examples from Poland. In 70 addition, a review of the literature [5] indicates that there exists abundant biography in the sphere of 71 sustainable development, but poor in the area of analysis of architect's attitudes in the face of changes 72 in design, and ways of design. (See also [6-8]). 73 2. Explicit and tacit knowledge 74 Many renown architects began their education and professional career under the influence 75 of modernism, which in the 1980s significantly impacted the approach to architectural and urban 76 design. The difference in the level of knowledge prevailing in that period and the knowledge 77 necessary to understand and implement the principles of sustainable development is enormous. The 78 condensation of problems and new elements of knowledge faced by the architect today is quoted in 79 part in Figure 1. 80 The quoted set of knowledge elements indicates that designing is a team game, that in order 81 to cope with all this you need to have a competent team at hand, new organizational methods should 82 be used (e.g. integrated design), new tools (e.g. BIM). 83 In designing, and from the architect's point of view (and his office), two types of knowledge are 84 distinguished: formal (explicit knowledge) and hidden (tacit knowledge). Explicit knowledge is acquired, 85 it stems from standards, technical design conditions, and can even be obtained from technical 86 specifications. It also includes design paradigms. Tacit knowledge refers to individual skills, 87 creativity, and is used on a regular basis in designing. Both types of knowledge constitute intellectual 88 and creative capital [9]. Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 December 2017 doi:10.20944/preprints201712.0145.v1 Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 100; doi:10.3390/su10010100 3 of 15 89 90 91 Figure 1. Typical dilemmas in the interaction of knowledge - design paradigms - sustainable 92 development 93 An architect who is unable to use the elements of knowledge supporting sustainable design 94 (Figure 1) loses not only his prestige, but can also make technical mistakes and become vulnerable to 95 conflicts with the participants of the investment process [10-12]. Figure 1 has been supplemented with 96 two contrasting patterns of functioning of the building's (closed and linear circulation), which were 97 at the basis of ecological design. 98 3. Basic legislative requirements 99 Design paradigms require permanent extension of knowledge. Legal acts accompany this 100 process. As early as in 1987, under the UNESCO patronage, a specific message for the architect was 101 formulated, i.e. suggesting that the architect, taking into account the three criteria below, turned his 102 attention to the beneficiary, that is, that he contributed to a fully balanced model of life. These criteria 103 consisted in emphasizing the integration of activities in three areas: 104 economic growth and an even distribution of profits; natural resources and protection environment; 105 social development. 106 Further initiatives in this area were taken over by the European Parliament and the Council of 107 Europe, in particular through the Committee European de Normalisation/Technical Committee 350 108 (CEN/TC 350), (cf. [13]). Subsequent acts try to structure a number of issues related to sustainable 109 development in construction, however, it has quickly turned out that designing buildings in 110 accordance with these principles is not easy and, above all, requires a holistic, integrated approach. 111 It results from the multitude of parameters defining the impact of the building on the 3 pillars of 112 sustainable development: environment, society, economy.